Network Centric Operations Conceptual Framework Version 1.0

Garstka, John J.

doi:10.21236/ada457620

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When considering each approach, the design team must assess how well it supports the operational initiative and achieves the desired end state. For an effective assessment, they must be able to accurately identify the constraints and factors that influence the feasibility and desirability of each approach (Garstka, 2003). The constraints and factors include relevant actors, resources, and risks (U.S. Department of the Army, 2011a) and further require an ability to draw inferences regarding possible outcomes associated with each approach.…”

Section: Considering the Consequences Of Approaches And Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The constraints and factors include relevant actors, resources, and risks (U.S. Department of the Army, 2011a) and further require an ability to draw inferences regarding possible outcomes associated with each approach. Garstka (2003) posited that being able to predict or infer possible future patterns is an essential element of understanding. Individual or group awareness pertains to existing or past conditions, but individual or group understanding requires inferences regarding what has yet to come.…”

Section: Considering the Consequences Of Approaches And Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The end product of the collaborative process should be a melding of the varied members' perspectives into a common understanding and statement of the situation. If team members are not able to coordinate between disparate perspectives, the organization and function of the team will not be synchronized and creation of an integrated view of the situation will be challenged (Garstka, 2003). Finally, the sharing, reconciliation, and coordination of viewpoints may still not achieve the shared understanding that design seeks to establish.…”

Section: Design Team Leader and Members As Sensemakers And Sensegiversmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identification of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Army Design

Wolters¹,

Conrad²,

Riches³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Army Design Methodology is an evolving concept and this research identifies required knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) for leaders and their staffs to effectively use design. Identified KSAs can inform and direct training and leader development that facilitate the application of design and positively impact operational success. This research employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to determine design KSAs. Results support a framework of six competencies and 43 KSA related to the cognitive and social-communication components of design. In order to enhance the development and application of design competencies broadly throughout the force, the Army needs to identify and select Soldiers with a propensity to demonstrate the KSAs, provide them additional developmental opportunities (both inside and outside the classroom), and finally, reward them for engaging in design thinking.

show abstract

Section: Considering the Consequences Of Approaches And Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Considering the Consequences Of Approaches And Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Design Team Leader and Members As Sensemakers And Sensegiversmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Army Design

Wolters¹,

Conrad²,

Riches³

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Office of Force Transformation produced the next document that was examined for information on the creation of a detailed conceptual framework for network-centric operations [2]. The framework spans three domains: the physical domain (ground truth), the information domain, and the cognitive domain.…”

Section: Office Of Force Transformation: Network-centric Operations Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Assessment of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Enterprise Workflows

Hurley¹,

Jones²

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the challenges of developing complex systems is the question of how to measure system performance. Good engineering practice is to define a single compound measure of system performance, called the figure of merit (FOM), and to select design options by their effects upon the figure of merit. The Joint Services of the Department of Defense (DoD) are in the process of transitioning legacy computing applications for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) tasks to standards-based information enterprises. This process is occurring with very little theoretical or practical understanding of the appropriate FOMs needed to assess the performance of these large information systems. The danger of developing systems without clearly stated and understood FOMs is that important but difficult to measure system characteristics are overlooked in favor of less important but easier to measure system characteristics. As a result, operational users, system developers, and program managers who rely on accurate performance information are left with considerable uncertainty regarding how to best use, improve, and deploy these systems.This report presents an end-to-end assessment framework for C4ISR enterprises that identifies potential FOMs and thereby eliminates a significant fraction of this uncertainty. The framework delineates how measurements from laboratory tests, operational experiments, and field deployments can be analyzed to produce accurate, quantitative descriptions of system performance. These FOMs not only inform the development and acquisition processes but also allow military users to ensure that they are optimizing the information enterprise to achieve improved operational capability. In fact, active participation by the military user community in defining appropriate FOMs is essential to providing users with systems that meet their operational needs. An analysis of a simple ISR enterprise is conducted to show how FOMs might be calculated and used to assess the relative merit of different communications architectures for the construction of a common operational picture (COP) among a collection of distributed sensors.111.. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iiiList of Illustrations vii

show abstract

“…Mobile ad hoc network (MANET) technology is a key enabler for the Army's vision of Network Centric Warfare (NCW) [GA04]. MANETs have no fixed or static infrastructure and dynamically change their topology to respond to node mobility, RF obstructions, and changing application and mission needs.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Intrusion Detection and Fault Localization in Manets

Sterne

Balenson

Tsang³

et al. 2006

Milcom 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

*In this exploratory paper, we propose that intrusion detection and fault localization techniques in MANET environments (which are commonly separate systems) should work cooperatively. We argue that an integrated approach will exhibit improved accuracy, and also minimize system overheads and redundancy. Using detection of in-band wormhole attacks as an illustrative example, we outline how an integrated approach can better distinguish malicious network attacks from "normal" network delays and outages.

show abstract

Network Centric Operations Conceptual Framework Version 1.0

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

Identification of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Army Design

Identification of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities for Army Design

Performance Assessment of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Enterprise Workflows

Integrating Intrusion Detection and Fault Localization in Manets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About